Climate Change = Weird Weather
Funny how last weeks snow storms were all the rage on Right blogs while not a word was uttered concerning the unseasonably warm weather in Vancouver. Typically Republican. And while I think Thomas Friedman’s NYT Op-Ed is a step in the right direction I doubt it will change any minds on the Right – mainly because the Right doesn’t respect or understand science. They are quite happy in the Dark Ages, thank you very much. Also why trudge through data by a physicist, Joseph Romm, when you can just listen to Donald Trump. Talk about the dumbing down of America.
But back to Friedman’s article.
When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.
That’s the point. The last thing Republicans want is a “serious discussion about the climate-energy issue.” They simply don’t have the facts – or the intellectual capabilities – to understand science. Reading, and then discussing, scientific research is beyond them, and why bother when it’s snowing. To them global warming can be dismissed by the need to wear a jacket. And the regularity they get away with these nonsense arguments is breath-taking.
They truly don’t understand science – which probably explains the glaring lack of scientists among their ranks. So here is how science works (in a nutshell): Disproving is as important as proving. Got that?
The main problem for scientists is countering a political attack that cherry picks their research and/or lies about what they said. My family is bursting with scientists and environmental engineers. Ever try talking to these people? Needless to say, their points and research aren’t designed for a world dominated by sound bites and bumper stickers. Or simply, science is complex. Which, again, brings us back to Friedman’s idea.
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.
I think this is a good idea. I also know that this 50 page report won’t matter to the neanderthals on the right – mainly because they won’t read it. But I can’t worry about them. They are a lost cause who deny science with the same fervor they deny Obama’s birth certificate. Amazing how physical evidence and research carry no weight with a group who insist that everything in the Bible is true and must be taken on faith.
I’d be happy to leave science to the scientists, but that’s not the way this game is shaping up. It’s political. So give me that 50 page report and I’ll fight that political fight because scientists have more important things to do than fight “intellectual giants” like Donald Trump and DeMint.
Tags: Climate Change, Science
The left is still not as good at the right of arming people with talking points. That’s really what’s needed. Scientists are going to keep doing science. Scientists can help in the political arena by arming their friends with information. I hate the soundbite culture as much as anyone but you’re at a big disadvantage when you deal with a media that puts political foes on the same footing as scientists and political PR people know how to communicate to the masses much better than scientists do. Scientists are trained to communicate with other scientists.
Climate scientists are starting to get it and they can learn a lot from biologists who’ve had to deal the anti-evolutionists since Darwin first wrote his book. Climate deniers are following the exact same script – hammer and hammer at a detail and when that doesn’t pan out, find another one. Meanwhile they try to convince their followers and the braindead media if this one thing is wrong or not well understood then that means the whole theory is wrong. In other words, they know how to take advantage of people’s poor understanding of science.
Also notice how the GOP is conspicuously silent on the Vancouver warmth and no snow problems. Doesn’t fit the narrative, does it?
The whole “climate change” issue is a political football,and this is a political blog site………politics+science=junk science.
You need to tell the people on your side that, FBH. They are the ones who turned science into a political issue.
Wow, FBH, that was so deep. I’d lay a million bucks on that fact that you are not a scientist.
And I’d be happy to keep politics out of science, but, OMG, it snowed!
It is only political because:
1) This is the only field of play the denyers have. They are not in labs or in the field producing *gasp* science that might support their POV
2) The political field is the one most amenable to manipulation. You can pay for the kind of PR that kept tobacco regs at bay, because the media will just point microphones at two sides without ever getting to the real news here. And anyone gets to play you don’t need to have any special credentials or knowledge to do it.
3) The media is especially sensitive to being pushed back on this thing — mostly because they are trained to the horserace narrative (politics) and not to the somewhat different skill set for reporting on science
4) Scientists pretty much like to have the data speak for itself. It isn’t often that information needs special mediation to be clear to an interested audience in their view. It doesn’t help that those who are good at it (think Carl Sagan or Brian Greene) are few and far between. Which isn’t to say that scientists can’t perform for an audience — they usually are performing for grants, funding, bigger labs and other stuff that gets them more research capacity.
I have not heard a single climate scientist predict that it would stop snowing in North America in the winter. You might call it a snowman argument instead of a straw man argument.
For several years, I have pointed out the difference between weather and climate. Weather is what happens in a specific place at a specific time and changes moment by moment, sometimes dramatically. Climate encompasses the entire planet and changes slowly.
@ UI and the other scientists here: It might help if you explained how research funding works, because many of the conservatives I talk with are under the impression that scientists are faking data so they can reap millions in research grants. I counter by pointing out the lack of Cadillacs and Mercedes in research scientist parking lots, to no avail. Please help.
Geezer, here’s my best shot perhaps others could improve.
In general, scientists are funded through grants. Grants are obtained mostly from government funding agencies like the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and many others. Scientists write proposals for grants – some of which are multi-million, several years-long grants. The proposals are reviewed by the granting agency and a panel of reviewers, which can be many. The reviewers are people in the same field who understand the science of the proposal. Grant proposals are very specific, they can’t be something like “I’m studying climate change.” It will be a specific study and it must be justified, usually by the researcher’s previous work.
In general the grant money is divided equally among the university and the researcher. The researcher is paid a salary through the university and the grant monies are used to pay student salaries, buy equipment and conduct the research. The grant money doesn’t go into the researcher’s pocket. Now, I don’t know the policies of every university but the ones I’ve been involved with do not give money to the researcher. Of course, universities love grants, because it means that professor is essentially free to them – their salary and overhead expenses are already paid.
It’s true that really top scientists are well-paid, which is true of top people in any field. Their universities generally pay them well to keep them around (and keep the grants rolling in to their coffers) and some will start consulting and serve on advisory boards. This is a very small few though, only the top, top scientists.
The climate deniers are almost all funded by private sources. The biggest denial thinktank, is the Heartland Institute which receives money from multiple conservative foundations and trusts (like Scaife) and corporations like Exxon Mobil. With private funding they don’t have a transparent review process so we don’t know how it is awarded. The few people with actual scientific credentials who do this are generally no longer associated with universities and are quite well-paid.
Geezer, I’m not a scientist, but my brother is an immuno geneticist who’s very familiar with how funding works. I emailed him your question, and will post his response. He’s dealt directly with, and has had projects funded by, the NIH and the Pentagon.
Stay tuned…
What UI said is quite similar to what I’ve heard from my brother.
Thank you both. This claim — that climate scientists fake data for the money — is specious but widespread. It’s nice to have some ammo for next time I hear it.
Wow,pandora,thank you for the “that was so deep” comment. The only time i usually hear that is when i just made it out of a barrel.
Pandora said “I’d lay a million bucks on the fact that you are not a scientist” . You are right pandora i,m not a scientist, but i did study climatology at the U of D.
Where did you study this subject.
As far as fraud goes, it’s probably the worst way to get ahead in science. Science operates on a peer-reviewed process, and discoveries build on previous discoveries. People don’t usually get away with fraud for long because other scientists are out there performing the experiments that you reported to see if they can repeat them and build on them. If you remember, the cloning fraud carried out by the S. Korean scientist was uncovered rather quickly, within a year or so, because other people couldn’t repeat and started asking questions.
Science is not a field most people go into for money or fame – it usually is for the love of the field. People who study science are generally smart people who would do well in multiple fields. Scientific training is time-consuming and you’re not paid very well throughout most of your 20s. People spend 4, 5, 6 or more years getting a Ph.D. only to either go into a low-paying postdoc or low-paying Assistant Prof position (some go into industry, like I did). You can’t count on science for fame because sometimes it’s just luck – being in the right place at the right time. There are plenty of brilliant scientists who labor in relative obscurity.
FBH this is the second time you’ve mentioned you studied climatology at UD, just so I read you posts with the appropriate amount of respect could you please clarify? Were you a climatology major? minor? or did you like, take a class on weather because it was scheduled right after “rocks for jocks”.
I think Rocks for Jocks gets a bad rap. It gives non-majors a thorough grounding (sorry for the pun) in basic geology. If more people took it, we’d have fewer Biblical literalists.
Ooh I took climate courses too! Guess that makes an expert.
Actually, “studying” climatology (I’m assuming at the under grad level, since you aren’t a scientist, FBH) should have given you a deep respect for exactly how much you don’t know. But I guess you’re more aligned with a little knowledge…
I don’t know how you would tell that FBH studied climatology from any of his post. He hasn’t added anything science-related to the discussion.
I think by “studied” he means he took a class 25 yrs. ago and hasn’t thought about the subject since (from previous threads).
pandora has posted on this because it is a political issue. In general the political divide is Democrats leave it to the experts and Republicans don’t. That’s just the dynamic right now. Anti-science types (who align Republican right now) have made an art of nit-picking on specific data and scientists and their allies need to learn how to deal with it. Do you think pandora or I or anyone else on this blog is really committed to learning all the minutea of climate change science? Most of us are content to leave it to the people who know more about it and study it for a living. But it’s now political so we respond as we do with other political issues – by trying to get a basic understanding to form an opinion on it.
V, I only mention it when Pandora gets condescending, and it seems that she often does.
Just received the “Christmas Letter” yesterday from friends in Washington state who are experiencing the warmest January on record. But more to the point, you are so right Pandora–science can’t be reduced to a sound byte or bumper sticker. We had a conversation a few years back at the lunch table I was seated at an academic institution–of the whole right/left brain thing of cross communicating science to liberal arts folks, and vice versa. From that has hatched a lecture series, given yearly by a notable science scholar who has crossed the chasm to bring science to a mainstream random audience. The purpose has been two fold, and a success–science not being perceived as “so dry”, and a genuine interest in the topic discussed in audience friendly format. This year’s speaker (not but 2 weeks ago)… Dr. Janna Levin, of Barnard and Columbia, a physicist/astronomer w/ a gift to engage all audiences, w/o being some cartoonish science clown.
Interesting to note though–all the arguments people make about climate change–the same could be said for healthcare. It’s not just a reduced answer to access for all, and cost to none. These topics are so heavily layered w/ information, research, and just good ol’ fashioned genetics. The knowledge base really is more than what is read in Ladies Home Journal–and WEB MD.
And one last note–while science and scientists work furtively at research–for the most part, I really don’t think they care what the results are…they are scientist enough to say “this is the result” w/ the whole impartiality of fact–that was the reason for the research– a hunch to be proven or discarded. OK I’m done. Thanks.
Which is why I asked you to clarify FBH(which you haven’t yet). If you have extensive knowledge on the subject I would try to avoid being condesceding. However if you took a couple classes at UD like me (not hating Geezer, I am a Rocks for Jocks alum) I would consider us to be on equal footing.
OK and FTR–I never took a climate course–but had the privilege of being the recorder of the temperature everyday on the blackboard in Miss Crewe’s second grade class AND I’ve looked at clouds (from both sides now tee hee)!!! Otherwise, I just take the weather as it comes.
Awesome. You are hired. Have you ever worked for a multinational oil conglomerate before?
Pandora,at least i remember what Dr. Mather was trying to teach us.
He specifically stated that the whole premise of “global warming” was junk science. We can argue on the facts that he stated if you want to, because i remember them.
Sorry, FBH, but you’re getting the responses you deserve. Your first comment on this thread made no attempt to answer the post. You dismissed it and then I dismissed you. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
You want to have a serious discussion? Great. If not, I’ll respond in kind. Ball’s in your court.
Ah… good, FBH. Present your case.
FBH should also note how long ago this “Dr. Mather” was telling him this too. Much of the body of knowledge around climate change has changed pretty dramatically over the last 20 years.
I was the 1997(ish)middle school winner of the DE State Science Olympiad in the “Weather” category. Alas, I did not win the “how many pennies can you float in a tin foil boat” category.
V, I didn’t major in climatology it was just one area of study in a geography major which included climatology, meteorology, water resource management, city planning, and some liberal social geography classes with Prof. Brown. What a liberal she was.
Yes it was similar to “rocks for jocks”, but no rocks.
Hey V–I used to judge Science Olympiad! Sorry about your luck:(! Hope it didn’t hold you up from that Nobel Prize!
From what I can tell Dr. Mather stopped teaching at UD in the early 90s. The most recent description of him teaching in the article below is 1990. He died at the age of 79 in 2003.
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/01-02/mather.html
I think i understand some of the reason the right wing so feverishly denies that climate change exists. The idea that climate change, caused by humans can wipe us all out threatens the biblical idea that we will all be raptured up to heaven. the Right probably thinks that if humans can effect the climate, it means there is no God. They live in such terrified denial that if someone who has no credibility (fox news) tells them it doesn’t exist, they flock to that belief so they dont have to deal with reality.
Dont worry cowardly right, liberals will protect you.
Always with the religion. When all else fails, attack the religion. Not all of wingnuts are religious.
V, are you saying that i.m old ?
you’re not old, your education is just outdated and obsolete
h, when the RIght stops claiming to be the morally superior side who has the favor of God and works for Jesus, i’ll stop pointing out that all the Right wing positions can be easily traced to bastardized readings of the Christian Bible.
AGW (an extension of GIA worship) is the religion of the left.
It must be accepted completely with no room for skeptacism.
there is room for skepticism (check your spelin) It just gets refuted time and again by FACTS. Those are the things that never make it to Fixed News broadcast because it goes against their narrative.
and THE STAR, and ENQUIRER.
haha no FBH, but cassandra did ask when you were learning what you learned.
if I wanted to make you feel old I would tell you that I was 6 in 1990 😛
cassandra, yes knowledge of climate change has changed ,but the fact is that sources of reliable data have not changed all that much.
core samples from ice and sediment can only give a vague overview of what took place thousands of years ago
The fact is that data precise enough to make accurate computer models of long term climate change is non existent at this point.
People have only been keeping consistent weather observations for a couple of hundred years,and the older records aren’t reliable for many reasons.
In order for there to be an accurate analyzes of long term climate trends we would need thousand of years of accurate data.
Joanne, I wouldn’t say that scientists don’t care what the results are, after all you’re trying to prove your hypothesis right so you like results that support it. But you’re definitely right that scientists care way more about the process of getting the results than the actual results. I think this is where the huge divide is between scientists and the public. The public generally doesn’t care how you got the answer, they just want the answer.
lizard adds another brilliant observation. AGW = religion. Sorry, wrong. We just tend to defer to the experts on such things. Experts are defined by someone who has studied the subject. Deniers tend to use Sen. Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh as their experts. That is why we laugh at you.
Lizard cannot quote a single piece of evidence that disproves AGW. For that matter, neither can I. But there are thousands of people combing through data, developing models, rejecting hypotheses when they are disproved, developing new hypotheses, etc. Those people and people like me would love to be proven wrong. It is the way that it works.
I’d love to prove gravity wrong, so that I can fly. I’d like to prove the theory of relativity wrong, so I can travel back in time. Plenty of theories have been proven wrong before, and more will come. But if you are just shouting “You lie” from the back bench, you don’t get it.
This is an excellent opportunity to post this link to “Climate Skeptic Bingo.” lizard needs only a few more comments before we can shout Bingo!
the fact is that sources of reliable data have not changed all that much.
Actually, they have. And the rest of your post is the usual wingnut radio fodder.
FBH – So is the ability to accurately analyze data a millennium old a static science? Are you up to date on the data that can actually be gleaned from ice cores, tree rings, soil samples, etc? Or are you assuming that everything is the same?
because someone that went to school in the 40’s might say that about estimated ages if they had no knowledge of Carbon-14 dating (developed in 1949). Technology changes.
UI-Yes, I would agree w/ you that the lead scientist has much sweat, gut, and pride in what has been launched. But us minions who test, administer, evaluate, and record, answer to a more impartial rubric. No points for hope, wish or fantasy in what I’ve seen. I do try to offer a spot in the placebo pile if they’re interested:).
BTW– I “heard” Pluto is no longer a planet.
LG, you can extract the gasses out of the tiny air bubbles in ice core samples,and look at the growth between tree rings,but if you can,t correlate that data with accurate temperature data of the time than i would only say that it is not as helpful as if it did.
That’s true Joanne. A lot of people performing the experiments don’t have a stake in the outcome of the experiment. The data is the data.
That ice is glacial ice — a geologic feature — which can be dated.
good for you cassandra.
So what, too tough to admit you aren’t keeping up with how much science can really tell us?
Chemistry analytical techniques have advanced a lot since the mid 80s. I’ll have to wait until I get home to look up how those measurements are done.
Not exactly, casandra_m.
“The fact is that data precise enough to make accurate computer models of long term climate change is non existent at this point.”
True, up to a point. Unfortunately, those inaccurate computer models you’re talking about have so far underestimated the actual observations. In other words, the programs are so far incorrect — but in the opposite direction from the one that would support your point.
Global Warming = The Gods Are Angry…
but instead of thowing virgins into the volcano, you greens are trying to throw our economy into the volcano.
The only people stupid enough to buy that bullshit, Lizard, are over on DelawarePolitics. It is a wonder why you won’t speak to the only Delaware audience who will at least appreciate your complete ignorance.
lizard–I gotta admit, that is truly funny. But survival of the species is expensive isn’t it? How’s all that cancer, and black lung working out in your budget?
Why so hesitant to entertain there may be something to this climate change thing? I mean we have erosion, and mutation–why such a stretch for a few more snowflakes, or a few more scorchers in parts not used to seeing these things? Change is constant cowboy–so let’s work with it. Heck, we even have African honey bees where there aren’t “supposed” to be any–and San Joaquin Valley Fever outside of San Joaquin. Why so shut down to climate change? Granted, I’m opposed to much of the rat hole financing that may go along with this identified trend, but the phenomenom itself is worthy of inquisition.
Highly recommended reading, an interview with Dr. Phil Jones, one of the leading AGW advocates on the planet: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
If this doesn’t make a skeptic out of everyone who reads it, I’m not sure how to move forward.
Full disclosure, I’m not a scientist, but apparently I am more organized than one.
Or better yet..you are not a scientist, but hope your kid has the right stuff to be one:)…sorry Mr. Scott.
Being a skeptic ≠ not understanding what Dr. Jones is talking about.
Which I’m guessing Explains It All For You.
The “religious nut” connection is difficult. The Pope goes for climate change and your old school zealots love the end of the world. And an end of the world brought about by the hubris of man? Oh boy, now that’s some sacramental red meat right there. There are plenty of religious organizations either buying into or propagating AGW.
Tommywonk is thinking about this subject today, and adds a great Tom Toles cartoon!
Go ahead and put it in primary colors for me cassandra.
Joanne, I guess I would hope that my kid isn’t a scientist, because they’re mostly bores; but if that’s how he wishes to retain a milky white complexion, then so be it.
Actually, Jason Z, the Dr. Jones’ piece shows that you don’t understand science. Again, I’m betting money on the fact that Jason Z. is not a scientist.
Why do certain people not understand the cautious nature of science that relies on proof – proof that is constantly evolving. Only religious zealots could read this interview and draw an absolute conclusion – which Dr. Jones does not do – but, hey, he’s a scientist.
Here’s the deal with me. I listen to scientists. If tomorrow they were to deny climate change, I’d listen. Can you say the same, JZ?
Joanne, I guess I would hope that my kid isn’t a scientist, because they’re mostly bores; but if that’s how he wishes to retain a milky white complexion, then so be it.
Jason Z, if I were you I wouldn’t worry about my offspring being scientists. LOL! So not happening!
in a feb 12 BBC interview Professor Phil Jones, AGW Super Scientist confirms:
according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical
from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
(must be a heretic)
pandora: Jason Z, if I were you I wouldn’t worry about my offspring being scientists. LOL! So not happening!
Doesn’t seem very sporting to insult the intelligence of someone you don’t know. I know the rules here are set up like a fifth grade playground, but it doesn’t mean we can’t be serious.
(must be a heretic)
Or you must be an idiot who doesn’t understand science. Read the article again, linkless boy.
BTW, fair warning. Cut and paste another linkless comment and I’ll delete it. Got it?
Scientists are bores? Just ask Bill Nye the science guy…and as far as bores go…NPR did a piece awhile back that said accountants were rated the biggest bores. Anyone care to argue that?
And again, was that Mother Jones or Dr. Jones?
And apologies to jason 330 on 4:47….
Relax killer, the link was already posted: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Joanne, I guess I would hope that my kid isn’t a scientist, because they’re mostly bores; but if that’s how he wishes to retain a milky white complexion, then so be it.
Bores? Do you consider that quote serious, Jason Z.? Go on, defend it. I’m so sick of the whining from the right who are happy to dish it out, but can’t take it.
MOSTLY bores. Heck, I don’t even know why I use complete sentences here.
But Pandora, I’m sick of the whining that hides behind the right, and drowns out the reason!!!
Boring scientists really get everyone riled up, eh? It’s a mild generalization, apologies to the animated Dr. Nye.
Jason Z, mostly bores that you obviously tune out. Pay attention! And why would any parent rule out an entire field of study for their children?
Feel free to write in complete sentences. Unlike you, I won’t zone out.
Just a funny remembrance…..anyone remember a Delaware football game years back when fans wore shirts or painted their bodies, or some such thing w/ the maxim ” Life would be boring without chemicals”? I think they were playing Princeton, and it was still our state’s chemical engineering legacy of duPont/ Hercules/ Atlas. Just a thought….
I would respond here but I don’t want to bore Jason Z. with facts. Facts are so boring.
(must be a heretic)
Why? Climate change is being measured in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years — a 15 year plateau doesn’t mean much compared to a data set that big.
Which is the translation of statistically insignificant here.
You really should ask someone who knows something about both math and science before you embarrass yourself.
Yes UI, please refrain from boring us common folk w/ nadirs, compounds, and mercurials that improve quality of life. And by the way, flowers are only for fragrance and pretty to look at–just like us girls.
Just keep your pharmaceuticals in the lab OK? We have fun things to talk about.
“How’s all that cancer, and black lung working out in your budget?”
No one is getting “cancer” or “black lung” from greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is harmless, carbon dioxide is in my soda, methane is not toxic, nitrous oxide you can get at the dentist, and ozone is the most harmful to humans, but it has to be in high quantities and it can give you an asthma attack-but it’s not linked to cancer. I’m much more concerned with getting scrubbers on smoke stacks to filter out pollutants that can actually cause cancer.
FBH, you’ve quite misread what Joanne was getting to here.
Careful missundaztood, that’s the kind of crazy talk that’ll get you thrown out of here. We simple folks just aren’t fancy enough for this parlor.
Awesome — that makes two of you with Simply No Clue.
cass no, I think I read what JC was saying in the proper context. My point is valid, the major green house gases aren’t tied to lung cancer.
Dear Delaware Liberal,
Is this called “feeding the trolls”? One, yes there is methane poisoning–but is treated as CO poisoning, since that’s the by-product of the methane. And 2, the nitrous you mention, in simplistic form is about par w/ getting the “bends” if toxic doses are administered or encountered–and that my dear is from the arsenal of a previous career life in anesthesia. Satisfied?
So stick w/ your whip-its, and bovine BMs or you could be moving into dangerous turf, if we don’t look at accumulated or aggregated effects. Got it?
JC you said “lung cancer” and “black lung” neither of which you can get from green house gases.
So you’re asserting that “toxic doses” of nitrous oxide will give you the “bends”? Wow, let me alert the media. Still not cancer, but aren’t all things administered in a “TOXIC DOSE” kind of toxic?
And you’d have to be in an enclosed space with a heck of a lot of methane for an extended period to get methane poisoning or we’d have dairy farmers dropping off like flies.
And as for your attitude, save it for someone who gives a cow fart.
JC is here and can speak for herself, but I did not reah her post to say that you could get cancer and black lung from greenhouse gasses. Lizard claimed that we were throwing the economy in the volcano — JC laughed at that and asked a question that I read to ask him what price do you pay to stave off catastrophe. An Ironic Reading. The Black Lung was especially brilliant since the coal mine owners pretty much had the same reaction as the global warming deniers as to what caused their workers to get so ill.
But as for the cancer claim — there are predictions in increased skin cancers as the ozone layer gets depleted.
And yes, JC, this does count as feeding the trolls.
WHOA–Wait a minute miz…YOU made the leap of carcinogens!! I only pointed out survival of the species is expensive–and that would include toxic clean-up of those things that in excess as in the past have caused black lung and lung cancers. You went down the path of greenhouse gases–I only exampled the reality of what some may think are innocent gases–may have greater harm than yet identified. But, I’m willing to listen to science and research, and not someone burping the alphabet. Just me I guess.
Do you really want to rehash this? Lizard said this:
“Global Warming = The Gods Are Angry…
but instead of thowing virgins into the volcano, you greens are trying to throw our economy into the volcano.”
And then JC said this to Lizard:
“lizard–I gotta admit, that is truly funny. But survival of the species is expensive isn’t it? How’s all that cancer, and black lung working out in your budget?”
So,I think I have the context correct. But it’s ok because now we all know that green house gases do not cause lung cancer or black lung.
And global warming doesn’t erode the ozone layer, but Popular Science had a recent article saying that a beefed up ozone layer will actually increase global warming by trapping in green house gasses. So break out those aerosol cans, we have to save the planet.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-12/study-finds-ozone-hole-repair-contributes-global-warming-sea-level-rise
They call a depleted ozone layer and global warming “largely unrelated phenomena.”
Well done cass–and thank you. Bonus points for picking up on black lung–many don’t remember. And FTR, miners DID NOT COLLECT as workman’s comp. for probably more years than any acknowledged worker injury. Asbestosis victims learned well from that debacle.
No one is getting “cancer” or “black lung” from greenhouse gasses.
Right. The cancer and black lung comes from the particles released by burning and handling carbon – not the gases.
anon those particles are actual carcinogens. The greenhouse gasses are not.
Geez miz–you have the perfect blog name. In all fairness, the word “green” is mentioned at post 4:29 by Lizard. The word “greenhouse gases” is mentioned by you at 7:12. Obviously, 2 different interpretations. I do think that may be the source of confusion. Whadya think?
JC until cassandra explained what you meant, you seemed to be defending your assertion by explaining that even if greenhouse gases weren’t carcinogens, they still could be toxic.
Then we’ll just leave this as cassandra settled it. Have a good night, and stay away from exhaust pipes:)
How was it “settled”? Because that ozone layer/skin cancer thing didn’t settle anything since global warming doesn’t erode the ozone layer.
Good night miz—I’m leaving these weightier concerns to the scientists–and then I’ll take it from there–until then business as usual–some aerosol cans, and some spray bottles. Just a regular joe, trying to take a stab at doing what’s right. Nothing evangelical here in any camp.
It is settled because you challenged me about what Joanne said. She clarified her meaning, which means that part of the conversation is done. Unless you really want to be in the business of telling Joanne what she said.
And while ozone layer depletion and global warming are separate phenomena, the buildup of CO2 that keeps the warmth from escaping the planet will also cool the stratosphere. A cooling stratosphere will increase O3 depletion which means an increase in the ozone holes. And those gases that deplete the ozone layer from the earth surface side? They qualify as greenhouse gasses too — contributing to the near earth warming.
cassandra: “Climate change is being measured in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years”
Dr. Phil Jones: “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
The MWP lasted about 400-500 years. That data does not exist and Jones implicitly states, “There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”
So if global temperatures cannot be recorded for this time period, how could we go back, wait, what did you say, “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years.” So that’s gotta be over a million, right?
Full disclosure, I’m not a mathematician. Oh yeah, they’re boring too:-)
I guess you are not aware that Vancouver is typically warmer than Delaware in the winter because of Pacific currents. You also missed that this winter has been colder in most of the (Northern) world. One year does not a trend make. The last 15 years not showing a warming trend may. That was according to a leading Climate Change advocate and scientist.
I guess you are here not even following what is going on. Again. I guess that you are not aware that this past January was a record warm one in Vancouver — 44.9 degrees. Their average is 37.9.
Indeed one year does not a trend make. A claim we are not making. 15 years of warming is statistically insignificant (according to the same Leading Climate Change advocate and scientist) when you are measuring change over hundreds and thousands of years.